tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg April 10, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." evening we begin this with syria. last night, president donald trump announced the u.s. carried out a missile strike in syria. the move follows the chemical weapons attack on tuesday which targeted civilians. president trump: tonight, i ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in syria from where the chemical attack was launched. vital national security interest of the united states to prevent and deter the
spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. there can be no dispute that syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention, and ignored the urging of the u.n. security council. charlie: is the first direct american assault against the assad regime. it is a move away from his earlier position. vladimir putin called it a significant blow to the russian-american relationship. tom friedman wrote about the challenges in his new york times" columnork earlier this week. your bestseller has been there for 16 weeks. this president in the midst of a lot of foreign policy this week,
including a crucial meeting on thursday night, orders and airstrike against an air force base. what do you see as the repercussions of this? >> i think about this in three buckets. the first is i think it was important for the united states to use its power to send a signal that people use poison gas. we are talking the 100th anniversary of world war i. it does not mean we can write every wrong, that we can reverse every atrocity. but when we have the chance to do this at a cost that is tolerable with a message that is loud, i think it is really important because you do not want to have a war -- world where people think that is ok. second, i think it is useful for the united states at a time we are being tested by north korea in a more dangerous situation
with nuclear weapons possibly delivered to the united states, to at least interject some uncertainty about american power. don't count on us to sit back and let you do this. i don't think that -- i think that is a healthy byproduct of this. the big question is the third bucket. the weakness president obama faced in dealing with syria is john kerry always tried to negotiate a solution there, god bless them for that, but had no leverage. the question is, by doing this doesn't it give more leverage and say to putin and others we are not going to just sit back? we are diving in, that is clear. there is no desire of the american public to do that. but does it get their attention more? it relates for me to the fourth bucket, which is that i believe all important politics in the middle east always happens the
morning after the morning after. the morning after, putin announces us, u.s. relations will suffer from this, we stand with our syrian brothers. but i'm betting the morning after the morning after, he's on the phone with president assad and saying, what were you thinking? poison gas? a day after the american secretary state and the american you an ambassador basically say syria is for the syrians to decide. they were basically in the process of turning it over to you and you do this, what are you thinking? the reason that becomes important is at some point down the road, the morning after the morning after the morning after, does putin say, this guy is too much trouble? can we broker some kind of deal with the great powers or whatever, a power-sharing agreement. i don't know. that would be the best case scenario. that is how i think about it. charlie: the does not seem like he is doing that.
but as you say, it is not the day after the day after. a couple of points. some are suggesting that perhaps this attack was a consequence of what the secretary of state said. we will let them do whatever they want to do. we are not going after ass ad. he goes and makes a dramatic step knowing, i assume, that there are pictures. >> in the age of twitter and cellphones, it will get out. president we know watches tv. that is his main stimulus. he saw those pictures from television. i don't know what the policy was the day before yesterday, what tillerson and the yuan ambassador nikki haley were talking about, up to the syrians to decide. i don't think the policy is radical change. on syria, i have nothing but humility. i think it is a problem.
i think it is one of many problems today that if anybody if youo you and says want to be secretary of state tell them you have your heart set on secretary of agriculture because there are so many problems. obamacare is big and complicated, much more difficult to solve than you think. the constituency is not happy with what you do and it will cost more than the apparent -- american public wants it to. charlie: it seems the president hesston link -- has to link his actions to a failure to act by the predecessor. >> there is a lot of controversy around obama's decision to draw a redline and not bomb syria when it crossed the red line by using poison gas the first time. i would say this for president obama. he did not bomb syria, but he used the leverage of the leverage of threat of bombing to get a deal for syria to surrender supposedly all of its poison gas under the supervision
of the russians. now we know they did not surrender all the poison gas. that should be an embarrassment to the russians who guaranteed to steal. i will say one thing. had we not done that deal, the poison gas syria had, some of it would be and has isis because it was stored in places isis now controls. it is not a zero -- total zero that obama did. we got a lot of is out of the country. the problem is when a country breaks apart, a country held together basically from the top down by nine fist, and it breaks apart, putting it back together impossiblell-nigh for an outside or outside power. you are looking at how to limit the damage. there is one thing i would urge people to consider because i think there are two issues from american strategic point of view. there is the humanitarian question.
it is horrific what has been going on. we are donors of humanitarian aid to syria. people don't realize how much is pouring in from the united states. there is also the spillover of people into stable, decent states like jordan and lebanon, which is now destabilizing those states which we have a strategic interest in not happening. charlie: the rise of populism in western europe. >> basically what putin with syria is the weaponize the refugees. he has triggered a nationalist, populist backlash in the european union which is straining and stressing the e.u. most americans don't like to think about the european union. america,ay about latin they will do anything for it except read about it. it seems like this boring thing. i called it trumps european union to fool the search engine. is thet is the e.u.
other united states in the world. it is the united states of europe. it is the other center of liberal ideas and free markets. it is the other united states. charlie: it is big. >> it is the world's biggest market. two united states are better than one. they are kind of our wing man in the world. you go anywhere in the world, in africa, you will see an e.u. a mission there -- eight mission there. the e.u. fragments under the stress of refugees. it is not just from syria. it is also from sub-saharan africa. that is a huge strategic loss for the united states. i think there are a lot of dimensions. charlie: some argue the following. that this kind of proportionate attack will never change the behavior of bashar al-assad. airbase.se an the only thing that will change him is the fear of survival, the
loss of power. unless you do something that threatens that, you're not going to get anybody's attention. >> it is true. my friend michael mandelbaum said the only thing standing in the way of an american intervention in syria is american democracy because the american people don't want to do it. that is a fact. i don't think anyone in their we want tosays invade syria and take it over the way we did iraq. no one is talking about that. i think the question is, could you partner with the arab league, nato, they put troops on the ground where we contribute, to create some kind of safe zone that might create the pressure not to topple assad. because that is not going to happen. you are right about that, charlie. but to get the russians and iranians to negotiate syria. what you don't -- we don't want
to collapse the state because then you end up like a rock for the whole system falls apart. you want the russians and iranians to move assad aside. he has killed so many people. no peace arrangement is possible. put in some other general or leader who has not got all this blood on their hands and then say, can you negotiate some kind of power-sharing agreement -- arrangement? it is hard. exactly what is john kerry was trying to do for years. >> he had no leverage. charlie: he said that. diplomats in the state department said that. >> that is what they complained to obama about. obama took the view that it was all were nothing. once you started with something, you would end up with a big part on the ground. i want to be totally humble about it. it is the problem from hell.
i sympathize with anyone who has to deal with it. but i do think what we are going to have to think about and what trump will have to think about is, is there a way to build an international concord -- coalition that creates some kind of leverage, a no-fly zone or safe zone, where the russians finally say this is more trouble than it is worth? a guy playing at the casino in syria. a big pile of chips, but he can never go to the cashier. cashier go to the because the minute he leaves, it all falls apart on him. he has a problem, too, at some point. is he going to stay there forever propping up this country? charlie: why has he been so resistant to finding a transition government? >> i think partly because there has not been a lot of pressure up until now. charlie: was nothing threatening assad on the ground. >> they had beaten back the
opposition. mystery of life assad did this. in a sense, they had what they wanted. reopened the whole case and question. there is no military solution in syria. there is only a power-sharing solution that will have to bring the united states, saudi arabia, iran, and russia to the table. charlie: and around. >> you cannot do it without iran. fighters andranian has left and mercenaries from central asia, pakistan, and other places. ukrainians are key players. -- the iranians are key players. charlie: the battle in mosul. asy have a plan using kurds part of land-based fighting force, boots on the ground in
syria. >> there is no question the isis problem remains. isis is not happening in a vacuum. it is derivative of this other issue. charlie: a recruiting tool. >> isis was a byproduct of the pro-iranians in iraq and the maliki government and assad trying to crush the sunnis of syria. have the guys beating the money. the whole region is a mess. it is a bloody mess because these states were propped up by the cold war. charlie: what does it do to all the attention on russian meddling in the american elections? it kicks it off the front page for sure. investigation continues by the f.b.i. >> it will continue. i think it will come back. we need to know what russia did and how they did it to prevent it next time around. charlie: we need to know whether
there was any coordination. >> was there any collusion? i am never going to sleep easily on this issue until i see donald trump's tax returns. you have two issues. there is the issue of collusion between trump people and the russians to tilt the election his way. from what i have seen so far, i don't see hard evidence of that in any significant way. but then there is the question of, is he compromised? until we see his tax returns, we will not know the answer to that. i assume there is a reason he is hiding them from us. people say he will never show you the tax returns. >> that is what i care about more than the f.b.i. investigation. charlie: there is also the summit going on in palm beach. the column he wrote --you wrote. >> i said trump is a chinese agent. charlie: by taking these policy positions, it plays into the hands of the chinese because
alternative sources of energy will provide jobs. he said it i said, want to be tough with china on trade. how do you get tough with china on trade? i would organize and 11-nation trading block in asia, in the asian pacific, based on our values, interests on trade. charlie: t.p.p. >> great name for it. what the trump do on his first day in office? rips up t.p.p. don't tell your listeners this. we only stalled these guys in asia. we got so much of what we wanted because they want to be in a trading block with us. they are scared of china. they allowed unions to organize. we had a great deal there, he rips it up on the first day. data he gets rid of our climate
commitment to mitigate climate change. mr. president, you don't believe in climate change. i do. put that aside. we will set that over here. do you believe in math? peoplenow at 7.2 billion . by 2030, 8.1. another billion people will be here by 2030, charlie. hopefully, you and i will still be here then. another one billion people who will drive like us and live in homes like us. that is going to put so much pressure on the planet that clean air, water, power, and energy efficiency have to be the next great global industry. otherwise, we will be a bad biological experiment. ladies and gentlemen, please raise her hand if you think america can be the greatest economic power in the world and not be the next -- leave the next great global industry. anybody raising their hands? i don't think so. we are seating into china.
china has to go down this road because they cannot breathe. they don't have any choice but to invest in it. they are doing it in a holistic way with american companies. for both of those reasons, trump is being china's agent. forget the russian agent. he is ceding the state of issues to china. charlie: north korea will be topic one or two, probably one because they have more serious applications. we need china. we need russia on syria. we need china on north korea. >> absolutely. you can bet when they get in the difficult trade talks, there will be some kind of trade-off. i will squeeze north korea on this if you on squeeze -- uns queeze on that. i think that is where the bargaining will be. he may be good at it. we have three choices on north korea. they are the same three choices
obama faced on iran. bomb, acquiesce, or negotiate. in the end, obama did not bomb iran. he did not want to acquiesce, so he negotiated. i think the same is going to be true. charlie: the thing about north korea is they are further along on uranium. >> that makes it harder. charlie: i'm told by people who know these kinds of things but not necessarily 100% right, that they are much closer than we think they are. >> that is scary. closer to having the ability to miniaturize their fissile material into warheads. and they will put it on intercontinental ballistic missiles that could hit los angeles. that is why this will be a very unpleasant negotiation. because we will not be able to get them back to zero in 15 years as we did the iranians. we will be lucky to reduce their
stockpile from close to 100 down to 10, and stop their missile testing so they cannot perfect a system to get close to us. i think that is the best deal. the problem with north korea is we kept chasing the perfect and giving away the good. it goes back to the bush administration. i think at some point, we have to bite the bullet or engage in a military action that would be horrific. there could be 10 million people killed in it. we have 30,000 american troops there. trump has one piece of leverage to say to the chinese i'm going to pull our troops out of south korea. we just going to leave this to you. when that happens, the south koreans, you're going? they are going to want to get their own nuke. when that happens, the japanese will want their own nuke. we can say to china, would you like to have a nuclear south korea and japan on your
doorstep? the cars theyke make, you can bet they have figured this out already. there is leverage we have on the chinese. by the way, the russians. how do you think the russians feel? have you looked at a map how russia crawls around? north korea has a nuclear weapon on their doorstep. they can say it is not aimed at us, it is aimed at you. charlie: some worry about his temperament, to say it kindly, who believes nuclear weapons are the only thing that will gain him status. >> unfortunately, we will have to give him a few toys because he or he has too many. i think that key thing now is to limit his delivery system so it cannot hit us. times"eagues at "the have reported we have a lot of excellent cyber activity going on to mess up their missile
system, but you cannot count on it indefinitely. charlie: let me go back to syria. you think in the end, this was an appropriate action even though the future is almost impossible to figure out a way to finding a solution without having the russians change their mind about seeking a transition government. >> yes. i believe in response to this poison gas attack, this horrific violation of the basic norms of humanity, that it was the right thing for the united states on one day to use its power in this way. charlie: because no one else was doing it. and also because whatever criticism there is of the united states, they look to the united states for leadership. trump neverdonald did a junior year abroad. he has never really looked at america from the outside. the goes for little trips here and there.
when you live abroad and look at america from the outside in, you learn everyone loves to make fun of us. they think every problem has a solution. at the end of the day, they in nvy our optimism and naïveté. it is that place out there where you can change your dreams, where people do believe problems have a solution. and when we go dark as a country, cynical as a country, it affects the mood of the whole world. this was one day for trump. i will not exaggerate or whatever. on this day on this thing, i'm glad the united states of america drew this redline and fine.his is not i think it was an important thing to do and i'm glad my country did it. charlie: i'm glad you came to the table.
♪ charlie: it has been a benchmark week in the trump presidency. the confirmation of his nominee to the supreme court, a key summit meeting with the president china, and in a major policy shift thursday, president trump ordered a military strike on a government air pace -- base in northern syria. they targeted syrian warplanes
and facilities implicated in tuesday's deadly sarin gas attack on civilians. with me, he recently returned from the region. welcome back to this program. set out for me where you think this is. what did it accomplish? and what are the risks? >> what it accomplished by far, it is the most significant policy move lauded domestically and internationally for trump since he became president. the entire foreign-policy establishment in the united states, many of which were never-trump, now coming out in full support for what trump did. also, allies around the world. australia, new zealand, saudi arabia, australia, germany, canada. these are folks that have been unnerved with things about the trump administration coming in. and they are now altogether saying we are glad you did this. that is clearly a plus. charlie: a couple of exceptions
are china, russia, syria, and iran. >> that is basically it. russia being the big one because trump expected he would be able to develop a better relationship with russia. that is well off the table now. the potential for real confrontation between those two is significant. but he is still going to moscow in a week. the russians could have canceled but chose not to. clearly, they are also being tempered in the way they want to respond to all this. what has he a cop was deciphered adding support for this one-all act? in terms of the world assembly -- syria, he accomplished little. it will not change the way assad behaves or change iranian support for the regime. charlie: what would change the way he behaves? >> a threat to assad's well-being. charlie: political survival and physical health. >> it or the threat of a decapitation attack against
syria or assad. given the territory he has taken him his support from the russians and iranians, he feels confident that is not coming for or if you felt the democratic -- diplomatic process led by the russians have the potential to throw him under the bus, there is no reason to believe the russians are preparing to do that. charlie: a lot of people resented barack obama at every turn resisted doing this. i guess we will find out if it was a correct decision by donald trump. >> yes, we will. but we will not find out for a while. obama agonized over this decision and ultimately, he decided not to take it. not because he thought there was a problem with the pinpoint strikes. but because he did not know where we were going to go from there. trump i think did not look any further than the strikes. he got the advice. what can i do to respond to these abominations of chemical attacks against civilians and children?
he was able to come up with something that looks good in the near term. but then what do we do? he has said in the last 48 hours that we want a transition in the near term from assad. he also said these photos affected him. in the next few weeks, we will see more photos of kids dad. the ball is actually still very family in trump's quite. -- court. charlie: what are his options? ian: one option is the slippery slope that obama wanted to avoid. it is more military engagement, which doesn't just come with the soldiers, butan also the russians and iranians supporting them, and the potential with direct confrontation with iranians getting killed on the ground. those are vastly more significant steps. charlie: and more likely, because the russians have pulled out of the agreement. ian: yes.
in other words, the russians has made clear that while trump can get away with this, they want to make it costly and risky for him to take further escalated or a stance against the serious -- syrian regime. charlie: the vladimir putin really want a confrontation with donald trump? ian: no, but i think he wants to embarrass donald trump. really believes, and certainly he was advised as such by kremlin officials, that if trump became president, that the relationship with russia would be noticeably better.that is the primary reason clinton -- vladimir putin decided not to go ahead with when president obama went ahead with sanctions for the dnc hacks. trump is now president and the relationship is not improving. in fact, it is did hear your
rating faster. at the least, putin has a whole bunch of information from the attacks on the republican national committee that were never released.i suspect we will start seeing that. charlie: maybe they will funnel it out through wikileaks. ian: or other sources. it is hard for me to imagine that trump, with all his domestic vulnerability around the ongoing fbi investigation of collusion between suspected trump officials, those advising him and the russians, if the russians have further information that can embarrass trump, i suspect it will come out. charlie: i also suspect the cia has lots of information that will end there is a vladimir putin. ian: i'm sure that's true, but how vulnerable is putin to that domestically? i argue, not at all. obama was unwilling to go that route, despite the fact that the elections were delegitimized by putin, he could have put out information against putin
showing money, showing compromising political information. he chose not to do that because it would have escalated in a way that doesn't necessarily hurt putin, it just angers him. i think trump will be up against the same thing. the propaganda organization the kremlin has is a lot stronger than anything the u.s. could put into play. i know they have lots of sources and means to figure out everything there is bad to know. ian: but your point is that we are moving back to a cold war. i think that the russians don't have the same economic capability or political region they used to, but i think the level of confrontation between the u.s. and russia, the perception of zero-sumness, that if we win, they lose, and vice versa, --
charlie: what is also becoming real, the fbi acknowledged there is an ongoing investigation to look at whether there is any collusion between russians and trump operatives. ian: that's one of the most interesting things here. the fact that in the near term, democrats and republicans are going to be talking less about trump colluding with the russians, because he is on the right side of the russian issue. lindsey graham john mccain supporting very strongly what trump is doing against the russians in syria, but that doesn't change the fbi investigation. that will continue at its own pace. the media will be following it. an interestedre player. not very cooperative with trump. charlie: how are the chinese dealing with this? ian: i think the chinese are both surprised and annoyed that
while they were meeting, came all the way over to mar-a-lago to meet with trump, that this announcement was dropped upon them. as a consequence, the importance, the pomp of that meeting is the condit of this. they have been more in line with the russians. they have supported all the russian vetoes at the security council when none of the other permanent members did. i'm not surprised the chinese would be on the russian and iranian side of this issue.they will not go to the mat on syria the way they would with taiwan or -- charlie: but it also sends a message that when trump threatens north korea, saying if the chinese would not help, we would go it alone. the chinese might say, "well, he's serious." ian: i think in some ways that was the most useful thing that came out of this entire episode for trump, the fact that he showed a level of unpredictability to the chinese,
and made the chinese think that they may need to give a little to get a little on north korea. still, what trump has shown, so far, is that when he goes to the negotiating table, he's all about the stick, not the caret. -- carrot. while the chinese might be willing to accept that, the north koreans are not. keep in mind kim jong-un just assassinated his half-brother, protection.r the of the chinese government someone willing to do that when the chinese are responsible for 90% of your economy is not someone that is easily going to threats of a surgical strike. this was also a guy willing to launch a ballistic initial -- missile, literally as xi jinping was on his way around the world to visit donald trump. his willingness to put himself on the map and and there is the chinese is not insignificant.
i hope the people advising trump are giving him that information. charlie: what has it accomplished? ian: i think the summit, so many people in the media believed the summit would be negative, that trump would say the chinese are raping us on trade -- the fact that we were talking about syria, trump was the actor, making decision, makes xi jinping look like he's not calling the shots. for the last few months, we've been talking about how xi jinping was able to make up more ground in the international environment. the trade agreement didn't get done, the chinese are the ones spending the money. now suddenly the americans are making the news. i think that helps. it helps recent boundaries. it also creates diplomatic space that two great men have now met each other. now that people and professionals underneath them can spend time may be working through. tender be cooperation on these issues without the hot glare of the lights.
handshake? good all the things the media would have torn apart, they are not doing that. if trump can avoid tweeting about china and instead can focus on syria -- charlie: what if he tweets that he loves xi jinping? ian: it would be awesome. but if he can just get away from that need to be the tough guy. , doing the bombing. charlie: they know he's prepared to engaged if necessary. ian: the biggest plus that comes out of this entire episode is actually u.s.-china, not syria or russia. charlie: the other interesting thing, they seem to have done it well, in terms of whether it was , number one, number two, it was handled , and they toldk
the russians. ian: they told the russians in advance. and the fact that he didn't go to congress, i have no problem with that. congress, you got a vote, the syrians are prepared, they move away. i actually think the people criticizing him for not taking the time to go for a vote, that is not -- that is an ill-founded criticism. charlie: whether ill-founded or not, should we have executive office go to the legislative under some separation of powers to get permission when they were going to engage in these kinds of military action invading another country in terms of an attack on one of their airports? ian: the definition of whether states' is at -- the
security is at stake. do you think this was a smart action by the president or it remains to be seen? i think that if the united states had not responded to these chemical weapons strikes by assad, no one else was going to do so, no one. that is a very good reason to bomb, and also a very good reason not to. charlie: that is also ttament that there are still a lot of people around the world who want america to lead, there's no question. and the willingness of americans actually lead on this issue, we perhaps may have induced assad to think a little more care -- carefully. ian: ian: we've already seen that he has launched more strikes again syrian civilians. we haven't change the outcome of the war. trump is not accepting syrian refugees.
he doesn't want the syrian kids here. he's planning on cutting back on foreign aid. if trump decides to change his mind, you and i can sit down and have a different conversation. but for now, most of trump's america first is in place. charlie: ian bremmer, thank you for coming. we will be back in a moment. ♪
disastrous turn this week. on tuesday, the assad regime managed a chemical weapons attack on civilians that left at least 86 dead, including dozens of children. tensions escalated after the trump administration retaliated, firing a barrage of cruise missiles at a syrian government airbase. joining me are two physicians on the front lines, delivering aid to the people. dr. rolla hallam let an effort to help a children's hospital in aleppo. dr. annie sparrow visits frequently to train syrian health care workers. they birth -- both participated in this weeks women in the world summit. i am pleased to have been here at this time. what i would like to do first is going to let you said to me that i did not know. there has been another chemical weapon attack outside of damascus that happened today. dr. sparrow: today.
charlie: and you know this from your workcharlie:? dr. sparrow: i know this from my sources directly in the field. the doctor who responded to this told me about it about four hours ago, shortly after it happened. the first thing you know whether a chemical attack happened is that -- it's usually the smell. you can smell something. chlorine.s that doesn't meet if a it was just chlorine, not mixed with something hideous, which is what we saw on tuesday, but that's when -- that is the first thing you notice. then the patients start to arrive. charlie: this is an important fact. if there's retaliation so soon, they are using chemical weapons. is therrow: yes, that response. it's not the first time and it will not be the last time. there has been more than 200 attacks in -- since 2013.
charlie: mostly chlorine? dr. sparrow: an mixture. mostly chlorine, but low grade level. charlie: the intent is to kill civilians? dr. hallam: this is a war on civilians. it beingjection to called a civil war. this is a regime killing its civilians. charlie: as a deterrent tactic? dr. hallam: absolutely. i think it is in order to quell the ongoing opposition. as you know, there has been a destruction of health care as a weapon of war. physicians and human rights have documented that hospital after hospital, doctor after doctor, has been killed specifically for their medical support and providing that, and because it is a much more effective way of attacking a civilian population. the bombs had been one of the
most deadly weapons used against civilian populations, mainly in opposition held areas. the airstrikes and aerial targeting that has happened has been mainly by use of conventional weapons, incendiary weapons, barrel bombs, notwithstanding chemical weapons. if a small fraction compared to the other weapons. charlie: what do you think is necessary for governments in the world to do? dr. sparrow: first of all, the biggest difference between using chemical weapons, which we care about, and the more conventional is that to die, from a chemical gas is the most obscene way to die that there is. i said that as someone who has a doctor who has witnessed hundreds of thousands of children die. whether it is being paralyzed, whether you can't breathe with
sarin, or whether you are turnsng chlorine, which into hcl as you inhale -- chlorine doesn't kill you, but they cause the most awful way to die. parents watch their children die in the worst way, because children are the most vulnerable. lose their entire families at once. i can understand trump doesn't like seeing that babies anymore than we do and all of our all of our colleagues. a baby is a baby. it is not a terrorist. , all the other attacks last week, the attacks on hospitals and civilian areas,
it is very far from isis territory. they are not even close to the normal front lines. they are nowhere near isis. twolie: i'm asking questions, really. one, do you support what president trump did? dr. sparrow: i do. i think the u.s. government needs to declare this not only has war crimes, but declare warm -- wartin as criminals. every government around the world needs to do the same thing. secondly, what needs to happen is that the un's quittary-general needs to stalling and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and gather evidence for these war crimes for a future tribunal. that was approved by the general assembly in december. april. are in that needs to be done. that is where ambassador nikki haley can also leverage that. thirdly, we need to look at the
millions of dollars of humanitarian aid and medical supplies that are channeled through the u.n. directly to damascus, where they are then being controlled by assad's family and friends. that is used to basically consolidate assad's political position and strengths. it is subsidizing the war. we see these very unhealthy relationships. the world health organization has a relationship with the ministry of defense. charlie: the world health organization? dr. sparrow: has a direct relationship with the military of defense where it lies -- buys for the army. on the one hand, you have jets and helicopters dropping barrel bombs and destroying hospitals,
creating this bloodbath we had seen, and we had no blood going to where it is needed, it is going directly to the assad army. that is what we mean with the targeting of hospitals, it is a very clear use of the weaponization of health care. they are using people's needs for health as a weapon against them. charlie: are you disappointed in the obama administration's tactics? very much so. what trump did last night is something obama should have done in 2013 when we saw 1100 civilians killed. what he did last night needs to be done again and again. what obama said, said is this is intolerable. what trump said is this is not just intolerable, but we will not tolerate it. charlie: and no one else is prepared to lead, so we are? dr. sparrow: that is the first
step forward, but it needs to show we will not tolerate the assad government, which is continuing to do this as we have seen with today's further use of chemicals. charlie: there are a few cities in syria that have suffered more than aleppo. you had factions right at each other for a long time. you had a hospital there. dr. hallam: i've been involved in the humanitarian response for the last six years, and involved in the building of six hospitals in northern syria and the aleppo governance. novemberw back in when that this easement of inton aleppo happened, was one weekend, five hospitals were bombed, including a children's hospital. we know that the data that has been collected by physicians, by amnesty international, human rights watch, this was
intentional destruction of health care, rather than as a collateral damage of war. that children's hospital that was run by the independent doctors association had been bombed a staggering six times hand. really, that is what galvanized this global movement to rebuild the children's hospital in aleppo. it was our way of saying, if were criminals are going to commit these murders and governments are going to stand by and let them act with impunity, we humanitarians and doctors will not be deterred from doing lifesaving work. we are going to glad -- galvanize global option -- action and continue to rebuild. charlie: where chemical weapons used anywhere else in the world? dr. sparrow: they have been used in iraq extensively. they were used in world war i, of course. that is where they -- why they had the convention. charlie: the iraqis used chemical weapons, didn't they? dr. sparrow: they used it -- ighout the gulf war
can't say with confidence, but they have used it. the problem with a lot of those gases is that they hang around for a very long time. we know that. in otherbeen used places, but we also know that in syria, they had been importing ingredients for chemical weapons for several decades. charlie: how many of them did they eliminate because of the agreement that was put together in 2013? dr. sparrow: we know from what they said at the time that the sites they cleared were not all of them. we also heard reports that they had more than 90% of the chemical weapons. dr. sparrow: when you look at how long they had been stockpiling and importing them not only from the soviet union the help80's, but with of soviets, czechoslovakia, west europe, germany was still
exporting the ingredients for britain gave extensively 2010.n 2006 and they had enormous stockpiles. charlie: the reason i'm asking is one of the principal reasons president obama said he did not retaliate after they crossed the red was because they made the areement to eliminate significant part of the chemical weapons from syria. that therved significant part of those were taken out of the country. obviously not all of them, because they have used them recently. dr. sparrow: we don't know that russia is in bringing back the same sarin it took away in 2013. but we also know something like it is a -- chlorine, medicine, it is used to so you canater,
import it legitimately, but you can make it easily and cheaply. chlorine comes an effective way and cheap way of terrorizing a population, where in the end, we think clearly that tuesday's massacre was overkill. they did not intend to go and get this much international attention.we have seen this operate on a strategy where we had these attacks that killed just a few people here and there. what the international media doesn't really care about, until you see something like tuesday, which is almost certainly because they didn't get the mixture of sarin and chlorine quite right. they didn't do it in a very predetermined way to cause maximum effect, so that's what we saw. charlie: thank you for coming, and thank you for the humanitarian work you do. dr. hallam: thank you. charlie: thank you for joining
>> janet yellen says the economy is healthy, continuing modest growth. of political risk. the longest winning streak of the year. anchor: a sign of the times. tesla's prospects push the stock higher again. the company is worth more than general motors. anchor: and why japan is finding it increasingly hard to find a domestic higher for toshiba's chip unit.